Plaintiff Favorable
at Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
9 plaintiff favorable decisions from Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
9 cases | Page 1 of 1
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, (Govt. Of India)
In this writ petition, Vinod Kumar Lakhotiya sought judicial intervention to expedite the pending registration of his trademark 'LAKHOTIA DURGA' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that previous opposition had been resolved through a compromise and there was no longer any impediment to registration. The Rajasthan High Court agreed with the prayer, issuing a mandamus-like direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks.
M/S. Lotus Organic Care v.M/S. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Lotus Organic Care, setting aside a lower court's rejection of its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core issue was whether the petitioner had made sufficient prima facie pleadings in their written statement to warrant staying the infringement suit while they pursued trademark rectification. The High Court held that the trial court only needs to record prima facie satisfaction based on the pleadings, not evaluate the evidence for the eventual rectification application. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed, allowing the petitioner to proceed with challenging the validity of the respondent's trademarks.
Kamlesh Kumar Mehta v.Union Of India; Gini Silk Mills Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar Mehta seeking the expeditious disposal of his long-pending trademark registration application for 'GILI' in Class 24. After considering the petitioner's request, the court issued an order directing the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 1) to decide Application No. 1779181 within a strict period of eight weeks from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Gautam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gautam Lal Tak filed a writ petition against The Registrar of Trade Marks, seeking expediting of his long-pending trademark registration for 'MAHALAXMI BRAND' in Class 29. After seven years of delay, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petition by issuing a directive to the Respondent. The court mandated that the Registrar must decide the pending application within six months from receiving the certified copy of the order.
Goutam Lal Tak v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Goutam Lal Tak filed a writ petition seeking intervention from the High Court regarding the prolonged pendency of his trademark registration application for 'MAHALAXMI OIL'. The court acknowledged the delay and issued a specific direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks. This order mandates that the pending application must be decided within six months, providing a clear timeline for the resolution of the matter.
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks (Govt. Of India)
Jagdamba Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition seeking intervention regarding its long-pending trademark registration application for 'SUPER POSTMAN' in Class 29. The petitioner argued that the application had been awaiting decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks for over nineteen years. The Rajasthan High Court addressed this delay, issuing an order directing the Respondent to decide the pending application within a strict period of eight weeks.
Komal Meena v.Mayank Pareek
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a lower court's order that had rejected an application for a temporary injunction. The core issue was whether the lack of a registered trademark barred the plaintiff from seeking relief in a passing off suit. The High Court clarified that while registration provides exclusive rights, Section 27(2) allows suits for passing off even if the mark is unregistered. Consequently, the court directed the trial court to reconsider the injunction application based on the correct legal principles.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries v.M/S Pearl Thrmoplast Pvt. Ltd.
M/S Manibhadra Plastic Industries filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging violation of its registered design (No.245-249) concerning a 'Jug'. The defendant challenged the suit, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as their primary business operations were outside Jodhpur. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that since the infringement and sale of the goods occurred within the court's jurisdiction (Jodhpur), part of the cause of action arose there, thereby establishing the court's competence to hear the matter.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.